How a motion is brought before the assembly

[mikalac]

Assume that we are in an assembly with a large number of members and nonmembers. It is the tradition to raise hands to be recognized by the chair. Assume that an individual member (not a committee) makes a motion orally to the assembly. (The motion may be a bylaws amendment or not associated with the bylaws.) Assume that the motion is in order and that the maker has the right to make a motion. Assume that it is not a routine motion and that the motion does not necessarily meet with wide approval of the members. Assume that no PoO has been made at any time. (pp.36-37). Assume that if the motion is complex that a copy was given to the chair (p.38). Assume that the maker of the motion and that another member has not modified his/her motion (pp.40-41). Assume that the chair has not stated the motion (question) and no PoO has been made of his omission.

 

Assume now that debate occurs and that the motion is voted on and adopted by the assembly. Is the adopted motion valid?

[Richard Brown]

 

Assume now that debate occurs and that the motion is voted on and adopted by the assembly. Is the adopted motion valid?

 

Taking a deep breath, I'll venture out on the thin ice of commenting on one of Norm's new questions.

 

In my opinion, the answer is "Yes, the motion was validly adopted", subject, of course, to the usual caveats: that it does not conflict with some superior rule of the society, or of something previously adopted, or state law, etc etc.  And, of course, the assembly itself has the last word on whether it was validly adopted in case of a point of order, etc.

 

I'm not sure at this point how a negative answer to this question would change things, but, did the person who made the motion get recognized by the chair for the purpose of making a motion?  Did  the chair even hear the motion? Was something else going on when the motion was made and/or adopted?

 

I suspect that there is some other factor that we have not been made aware of that might change my answer. 

 

Edited to add:  What is meant by "Assume that it is not a routine motion"???   Exactly what kind of motion is it??

[mikalac]

Taking a deep breath, I'll venture out on the thin ice of commenting on one of Norm's new questions.

 

In my opinion, the answer is "Yes, the motion was validly adopted", subject, of course, to the usual caveats: that it does not conflict with some superior rule of the society, or of something previously adopted, or state law, etc etc.  And, of course, the assembly itself has the last word on whether it was validly adopted in case of a point of order, etc.

 

I'm not sure at this point how a negative answer to this question would change things, but, did the person who made the motion get recognized by the chair for the purpose of making a motion?  Did  the chair even hear the motion? Was something else going on when the motion was made and/or adopted?

 

I suspect that there is some other factor that we have not been made aware of that might change my answer. 

 

Edited to add:  What is meant by "Assume that it is not a routine motion"???   Exactly what kind of motion is it??

There are no other rules and the bylaws say nothing on the subject. As I said, no PoO was raised ever.

 

Assume that the maker was recognized by the chair and assume that the chair heard the motion.

 

I made the assumption that it was not a routine motion because bottom of p.36 says that no second is required for a routine motion.

[Edgar Guest]

I made the assumption that it was not a routine motion because bottom of p.36 says that no second is required for a routine motion.

 

It says no such thing.

[Richard Brown]

It says no such thing.

 

What it actually says is:

 

"The requirement of a second is for the chair's guidance as to whether he should state the question on the motion, thus placing it before the assembly. Its purpose is to prevent time from being consumed by the assembly's having to dispose of a motion that only one person wants to see introduced."

"In handling routine motions, less attention is paid to the requirement of a second. If the chair is certain that a motion meets with wide approval but members are slow in seconding [page 37] it, he can state the question without waiting for a second. However, until debate has begun in such a case—or, if there is no debate, until the chair begins to take the vote and any member has voted—a point of order (see 23) can be raised that the motion has not been seconded; and then the chair must proceed formally and ask if there is a second. Such a point of order should not be made only for the sake of form, if it is clear that more than one member wishes to take up the motion. After debate has begun or, if there is no debate, after any member has voted, the lack of a second has become immaterial and it is too late to make a point of order that the motion has not been seconded. If a motion is considered and adopted without having been seconded—even in a case where there was no reason for the chair to overlook this requirement—the absence of a second does not affect the validity of the motion's adoption."

 

Edited to add:  I intended to quote both Norm's statement about what the bottom of page 36 says and Edgar's statement that it says no such thing.  I inadvertently omitted Norm's quote.

[mikalac]

What it actually says is:

 

"The requirement of a second is for the chair's guidance as to whether he should state the question on the motion, thus placing it before the assembly. Its purpose is to prevent time from being consumed by the assembly's having to dispose of a motion that only one person wants to see introduced."

"In handling routine motions, less attention is paid to the requirement of a second. If the chair is certain that a motion meets with wide approval but members are slow in seconding [page 37] it, he can state the question without waiting for a second. However, until debate has begun in such a case—or, if there is no debate, until the chair begins to take the vote and any member has voted—a point of order (see 23) can be raised that the motion has not been seconded; and then the chair must proceed formally and ask if there is a second. Such a point of order should not be made only for the sake of form, if it is clear that more than one member wishes to take up the motion. After debate has begun or, if there is no debate, after any member has voted, the lack of a second has become immaterial and it is too late to make a point of order that the motion has not been seconded. If a motion is considered and adopted without having been seconded—even in a case where there was no reason for the chair to overlook this requirement—the absence of a second does not affect the validity of the motion's adoption."

 

Edited to add:  I intended to quote both Norm's statement about what the bottom of page 36 says and Edgar's statement that it says no such thing.  I inadvertently omitted Norm's quote.

Can we move on to my main concern: Given the conditions, is the adopted motion valid? By valid, I mean that if the adopted motion is challenged and declared invalid by the chair, I can cite page(s) and ll(s) in RR-11 that will convince the chair that the adopted motion is indeed valid?

[Edgar Guest]

Can we move on to my main concern . . .

It's not easy given what Mr. Gerber (with, I think, admirable restraint) has referred to as your "monstrosities".

[Richard Brown]

Can we move on to my main concern: Given the conditions, is the adopted motion valid? By valid, I mean that if the adopted motion is challenged and declared invalid by the chair, I can cite page(s) and ll(s) in RR-11 that will convince the chair that the adopted motion is indeed valid?

 

I believe it is incumbent on those who claim that the motion was not validly adopted to show why.  A motion was made and adopted.  It is incumbent on those who challenge it to show why it was not validly adopted or why there is a continuing breach or violation of the fundamental  principles of parliamentary law or of state law such that it would render the motion invalid.

[DrEntropy]

A point of order must be timely, that is made at the time the breach occurs.  Read carefully page 250-251 and decide for yourself if any of the exceptions on page 251 apply. I would opine that they do not, and there is no continuing breach, but in the end, your assembly (through a point of order / appeal) will decide the interpretation of the rules as they apply to your group.  

[Richard Brown]

 

Assume now that debate occurs and that the motion is voted on and adopted by the assembly. Is the adopted motion valid?

 

Just out of curiosity, how many people spoke in debate on this motion and what was the final vote?  Was the maker the only one who spoke on it?  Was the vote 1 - 0, indicating that maybe nobody else thought that the motion was properly before the assembly?

 

Added to ask:  Who "put" the question to the assembly for the vote?  The presiding officer?  The  maker of the motion?

[Edgar Guest]

What it actually says is . . .

 

Since Mr. Mikalac presumably has a copy of The Right Book, I'm not sure what quoting the text that's in front of him adds to the conversation.

[Richard Brown]

Since Mr. Mikalac presumably has a copy of The Right Book, I'm not sure what quoting the text that's in front of him adds to the conversation.

 

Because of the obvious controversy as to what it actually says.  And because not everyone who reads these posts has the book.

[Timothy]

Assume that we are in an assembly with a large number of members and nonmembers. It is the tradition to raise hands to be recognized by the chair. Assume that an individual member (not a committee) makes a motion orally to the assembly. (The motion may be a bylaws amendment or not associated with the bylaws.) Assume that the motion is in order and that the maker has the right to make a motion. Assume that it is not a routine motion and that the motion does not necessarily meet with wide approval of the members. Assume that no PoO has been made at any time. (pp.36-37). Assume that if the motion is complex that a copy was given to the chair (p.38). Assume that the maker of the motion and that another member has not modified his/her motion (pp.40-41). Assume that the chair has not stated the motion (question) and no PoO has been made of his omission.

 

Assume now that debate occurs and that the motion is voted on and adopted by the assembly. Is the adopted motion valid?

If you are asking if the chair can purposefully not state the motion in order to later say that the motion is not adopted, the answer is no. If during voting he realized his mistake, he could correct his mistake and start the vote again, since people may realize when he states it that the motion is different than they thought. But once voting is completed, it would no longer be timely.

[Edgar Guest]

Because of the obvious controversy as to what it actually says. 

 

There's no controversy as to what it actually says. It's just that Mr. Mikalac doesn't understand what it actually means.

[mikalac]

Just out of curiosity, how many people spoke in debate on this motion and what was the final vote?  Was the maker the only one who spoke on it?  Was the vote 1 - 0, indicating that maybe nobody else thought that the motion was properly before the assembly?

 

Added to ask:  Who "put" the question to the assembly for the vote?  The presiding officer?  The  maker of the motion?

This is a hypothetical question so I can't say how many people debated, but I don't see how the number is relevant. With or w/o debate, assume that some member or the chair puts the question to a vote and it was adopted. Now will someone answer my question about the vadity of the vote and how I can justify its validity if challenged and the chair says that it is invalid.

 

I will now respond to Dr. E's post.

 

Let's assume that

[mikalac]

A point of order must be timely, that is made at the time the breach occurs.  Read carefully page 250-251 and decide for yourself if any of the exceptions on page 251 apply. I would opine that they do not, and there is no continuing breach, but in the end, your assembly (through a point of order / appeal) will decide the interpretation of the rules as they apply to your group.  

OK, I make a PoO as soon as the chair declares that the motion is invalid ("null and void"?). I have read your cited pages over and over again and I think that I understand them after a previous long thread on the subject. I read you as now saying that if the chair continues to opine that the motion is invalid, then my only recourse is to appeal to the assembly.

 

Given all the assumptions that I have made, is this the correct parliamentary procedure and am I in order?

[Richard Brown]

 Now will someone answer my question about the vadity of the vote and how I can justify its validity if challenged and the chair says that it is invalid.

 

I have already done so.  I think the burden is on those who challenge its validity to support their position.  Reading pages Ii - Iii in the introduction and pages  1 - 4 of Chapter 1, I believe motions adopted by the assembly are presumed valid unless proven otherwise.  I'm not going to cite a dozen or so sections to say why I think it is valid.  Give me some specific objection to respond to.

[mikalac]

I have already done so.  I think the burden is on those who challenge its validity to support their position.  Reading pages Ii - Iii in the introduction and pages  1 - 4 of Chapter 1, I believe motions adopted by the assembly are presumed valid unless proven otherwise.  I'm not going to cite a dozen or so sections to say why I think it is valid.  Give me some specific objection to respond to.

That's not what Dr. E. is saying. I'm going with his conclusion unless someone else trumps Dr. E.

[Richard Brown]

That's not Dr. E. is saying. I'm going with his conclusion unless someone else trumps Dr. E.

 

I think DrEntropy and I said just about exactly the same thing, but in different words, but, by all means, go with whomever you want to go with. 

[mikalac]

I think DrEntropy and I said just about exactly the same thing, but in different words, but, by all means, go with whomever you want to go with. 

OK. I needed to know what Dr. E and you concluded because I cannot appeal to the assembly because they are not sophisticated to know what to do and will therefore agree with the chair. IOW, if the chair declares that the adopted motion is invalid then I sit down and suck it up.

[Timothy]

OK. I needed to know what Dr. E and you concluded because I cannot appeal to the assembly because they are not sophisticated to know what to do and will therefore agree with the chair. IOW, if the chair declares that the adopted motion is invalid then I sit down and suck it up.

 

If the chair doesn't state the motion, it isn't the motion that would be invalid, but the vote may be invalid, which would be evidenced by someone saying something like, "Wait! What is it we're voting on?" The chair would then have the responsibility to state the motion, so it is clear, and then ask people to vote again. But if everyone was content to vote without the chair stating the motion, then there is no reason to invalidate the vote. However, if the vote is invalid, then the motion is still pending and must be handled accordingly.

[DrEntropy]

I think DrEntropy and I said just about exactly the same thing, but in different words, but, by all means, go with whomever you want to go with. 

 

I concur.  I was responding only to the original posting. It now however appears that the chair has later (How much later?) declared the motion invalid (why? didn't he originally declare it adopted?).  I am quite unsure of what is going on.  However, it is nevertheless up to the assembly to decide the meaning of its rules.

[Richard Brown]

 I am quite unsure of what is going on. 

 

 

You are definitely not alone!!!   I do, however, believe from Norm's other comments that this is a hypothetical.  I think some of us are afraid that it contains hidden "surprises".

[mikalac]

You are definitely not alone!!!   I do, however, believe from Norm's other comments that this is a hypothetical.  I think some of us are afraid that it contains hidden "surprises".

I'm trying different hypothetical situations because this is only the second owner meeting that I will have attended and I'm trying to be as prepared as possible for anything that arises. No doubt there will be surprises no matter how much I learn from books or this forum. All I can do is keep learning as much as possible before 9/20. After that the pressure will be off and I can digest what RR-11, PL, In Brief, Robert's Rules for Dummies, Notes and Comments on Robert's Rules, The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedures and what I can assimilate from the threads here. What else can I do?

[Timothy]

What else can I do?

 

Well, you could find out when some of the churches and other organizations in your area that meet more frequently have their business meetings and just sit and observe. I can't guarantee that they do everything by the book, but a lot of this stuff is easier to understand when you see it being used.